Impugned rejection orders quashed; authorities must independently decide fresh regularisation application under applicable government policy.

The petitioner claimed possession of approximately 500 sq. metres forming part of Revenue Survey No. 619, City Survey No. 252, situated at Village Nandasan, Taluka Kadi, District Mahesana.

He asserted that his predecessors had occupied the land for approximately 60 years and that it was used for agricultural activities, storage of agricultural equipment and cattle.

The petitioner applied for regularisation on 13 July 1999.

His application was initially rejected by the Collector on 4 February 2000; the matter was subsequently remanded by the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), for fresh consideration.

On remand, the Collector rejected the application on 25 July 2006 and directed removal of the encroachment.

The petitioner’s revision application was dismissed by the Joint Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), by order dated 9/17 October 2007.

During the pendency of the proceedings, a panchnama prepared pursuant to an order of the Court recorded the petitioner’s possession over the disputed land as on 13 November 2014.

1. Whether the Collector’s order rejecting the petitioner’s request for regularisation and directing removal of the alleged encroachment, as affirmed in revision, was liable to be quashed?

2. Whether the petitioner could be permitted to submit a fresh application for regularisation under the applicable Government policy in view of the recorded possession over the disputed land?

The Court considered Section 61 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879, under which unauthorised occupation of Government land may attract recovery of penalties and consequential action.

It also considered the Government Resolutions dated 8 January 1980/1982 and 1 June 1993, which were relied upon as empowering the competent revenue authorities—particularly the Collector—to consider regularisation of eligible encroachments, including encroachments within the prescribed area limit.

Regularisation was not treated as an automatic right; any fresh application was required to be considered independently, in accordance with law and the applicable Government policy.

The Court noted that the petitioner claimed long-standing possession and that the panchnama dated 13 November 2014 recorded his possession over the disputed 500 sq. metres.

Although the State contended that the petitioner was an unauthorised occupant and was not carrying out agricultural activities on the land, the Court considered the recorded possession and the petitioner’s request to invoke the Government regularisation policy.

Rather than finally directing regularisation, the Court granted the petitioner an opportunity to approach the competent authorities with a fresh application.

The authorities were directed to decide that application in accordance with law and Government policy, independently of the earlier adverse orders, thereby preserving the statutory and policy-based discretion of the revenue authorities.

The concerned authorities were directed to decide the application within two months in accordance with law and applicable Government policy, without being influenced by the Collector’s order dated 25 July 2006 or the revisional order dated 9/17 October 2007.

Both impugned orders were quashed and set aside.

The petition was disposed of, the Rule was made absolute, and there was no order as to costs.